First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Gun Free Zone
9834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/


Japan's yakuza still have guns and control virtually everything, though.
9834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:

I laugh every time I hear this argument A few red necks with guns won't do anything to stop our military in the event our government turn rogue.


Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British military and government thought something very similar about "yankee-doodles." We know how that worked out for them.

Also, a significant portion of our military is made up of rednecks with guns that have the mindset that you so clearly detest. What do think most of them would do if the government were to officially turn on us?
32077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/


Japan's yakuza still have guns and control virtually everything, though.


2 firearm deaths for an entire year in the entire nation. Yes that's correct, 2! In 2010, guns took 31,000 American lives. Accidental deaths alone number at 606. Compare those numbers to 2 deaths TOTAL in Japan.
32071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Detroit
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

AniMatsuri wrote:


MurdahG wrote:

The USSR didn't have drones and missiles specially made to blow up caves and cause widespread destruction either. The Taliban is almost a non-factor anymore. They can only do so much with ak47's and RPGs. The US government will not EVER turn on its citizens in some orwellian fantasy type of way where we all fear being massacred for loving a woman. The rest of the world would love to destroy such a government with as many debts and feuds as we have. Only thing saving us in a time of real crisis like that would be a coalition of supporters with REAL weapons. Not cheap armalite rifles and handguns.


The Taliban is such a non-factor that we're still trying to encourage them to make a treaty with the main government? We already have the TSA harassing us at airports and soon to be other places and the NSA spying on us in some cases whether we have anything to do terrorists or not, who's to say what the next step might be?


Do you know anyone who knows ANYONE who has been the target of a NSA investigation? The NSA doesnt have enough people to run itself let alone monitor even 5% of the population. Stop and frisk is much more intrusive and wide spread form of harassment than the TSA or the NSA, TSA agents never even touch me. Police surely do however....the Taliban is not a huge factor, at all.

But they are a pest. they will never win, and in the interest of peace were better off not killing them, rather than hunt each and every one of them. Less money spent that way too. The next step should be a step towards closer monitoring in my opinion. Too much freedom, not enough people responsible with it. We left the gates open to free-trade of any and all weaponry and this is the result.
9834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:


aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/


Japan's yakuza still have guns and control virtually everything, though.


2 firearm deaths for an entire year in the entire nation. Yes that's correct, 2! In 2010, guns took 31,000 American lives. Accidental deaths alone number at 606. Compare those numbers to 2 deaths TOTAL in Japan.


Perhaps, but I doubt that we'd even be allowed air guns. At least the Japanese get a form of gun-related defense weapons.
32077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

I laugh every time I hear this argument A few red necks with guns won't do anything to stop our military in the event our government turn rogue.


Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British military and government thought something very similar about "yankee-doodles." We know how that worked out for them.

Also, a significant portion of our military is made up of rednecks with guns that have the mindset that you so clearly detest. What do think most of them would do if the government were to officially turn on us?


Yes, the 2nd amendment was made for the purpose of fighting the red coats of Britain back in the 1700s. The purpose of that amendment no longer exists and is not applicable to today's society. Yes, armed citizens were effective back in the 1700s back when everyone used muskets and primitive weapons. Today's technology and weapons are far more advanced than what the British red coats used so the comparison is pretty idiotic, at best.

As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.
32071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Detroit
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:


aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

I laugh every time I hear this argument A few red necks with guns won't do anything to stop our military in the event our government turn rogue.


Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British military and government thought something very similar about "yankee-doodles." We know how that worked out for them.

Also, a significant portion of our military is made up of rednecks with guns that have the mindset that you so clearly detest. What do think most of them would do if the government were to officially turn on us?


Yes, the 2nd amendment was made for the purpose of fighting the red coats of Britain back in the 1700s. The purpose of that amendment no longer exists and is not applicable to today's society. Yes, armed citizens were effective back in the 1700s back when everyone used muskets and primitive weapons. Today's technology and weapons are far more advanced than what the British red coats used so the comparison is pretty idiotic, at best.

As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.


I firmly believe the fear that lead to the military industrial complex has put all citizens at the mercy of the goverment they supported. However, guns will be hopeless in the face of the weapons WE funded. Out of fear that other nations would d the same. Insecurity met insecurity and birthed weapons of mass destruction that can obliterate our entire existence.
42905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

MakotoKamui wrote:



*its

Also, he never actually said that. The closest he talked about was to disarm already subjugated regions/races, not to disarm citizens for the rise of Nazi (or any) power - http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp


Not to mention that he actually promoted gun ownership among citizens and loosened restrictive gun laws.
35191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
You really can't compare Japan and the US's gun deaths and attribute it to gun control alone. For one thing, Japan doesn't have our gang problems. After the tsunami a few years back, the Yakuza were in the streets helping people and giving aid. Try to imagine our gangs doing that. They'd be too busy looting everything in sight to help anybody.
9834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:


aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

I laugh every time I hear this argument A few red necks with guns won't do anything to stop our military in the event our government turn rogue.


Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British military and government thought something very similar about "yankee-doodles." We know how that worked out for them.

Also, a significant portion of our military is made up of rednecks with guns that have the mindset that you so clearly detest. What do think most of them would do if the government were to officially turn on us?


Yes, the 2nd amendment was made for the purpose of fighting the red coats of Britain back in the 1700s. The purpose of that amendment no longer exists and is not applicable to today's society. Yes, armed citizens were effective back in the 1700s back when everyone used muskets and primitive weapons. Today's technology and weapons are far more advanced than what the British red coats used so the comparison is pretty idiotic, at best.

As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.


Why do you feel the need to turn this conversation into something ugly? Goodbye. I refuse to engage you further.
35959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:

As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.


Just so you know, the majority of the people in military comes from areas of "armed hillbilly citizens" you seem to sneer at. A lot of those happen to be former military on top of that. So yeah, there could be problems within and without for the military to deal with if they were to be used against its own citizens.
32077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

aeb0717 wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:
As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.


Why do you feel the need to turn this conversation into something ugly? Goodbye. I refuse to engage you further.


I'm sorry if I offended you but when you compare the British red coat military prowess to our modern age military. it's very hard for me to take that argument seriously. The whole idea of citizens needing guns for the purpose of confronting the government is pretty silly to me. They have 0 percent chance of winning against tanks, helicopters, jets, missiles with guns. I'm sorry but I live in reality.
32077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

AniMatsuri wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

As for your second point, that is a completely different issue. If you are alluding to the effectiveness of a mass mutiny within the military, that is another issue. But we are talking about the effectiveness of armed hillbilly citizens against our military. You have to be incredibly stupid or naive to think that's a fair fight.


Just so you know, the majority of the people in military comes from areas of "armed hillbilly citizens" you seem to sneer at. A lot of those happen to be former military on top of that. So yeah, there could be problems within and without for the military to deal with if they were to be used against its own citizens.


Again that is a completely different issue than whether citizens w/ guns are effective against the military. I don't think our government will turn against us for the very reason that our government, police, military, politicians, are all part of our people, which is why it's absurd to think they will turn against us or that we need guns just in case that happens. Will the government racially profile and put people in concentration camps again like they did with the Japanese American citizens? Possibly. But a full scale war on our own citizens like how some paranoid people are suggesting is just not possible. The silly argument was whether citizens with guns are effective in the event the government turned against its people, and the answer is clearly no.
35959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
Like most threads do once you're several pages in, the point tends to stray.

Do gun free zones make anyone there safer than one that isn't? I haven't seen any evidence here that it does.
eldos1 
81211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36
Online
Posted 8/25/13

AniMatsuri wrote:

Like most threads do once you're several pages in, the point tends to stray.

Do gun free zones make anyone there safer than one that isn't? I haven't seen any evidence here that it does.


Very true. People get busted for drug position IN PRISION where everything is controlled and checked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.